The long history of warfare technology has evolved a great deal since the time of stone knives and clubs to the modern day drones and hell fire missiles. Years ago, military planners thought that the best way to win a military conflict was to quickly kill as many of the enemy as possible. Through many years of wars and conflicts, it was discovered that having a maximum killed in action count over a short period of time prolongs rather than shortens war and is not the best way to win a conflict.
When an enemy soldier is killed, he is of little added burden to the enemy. The enemy does not have to devote further resources, supplies or manpower to take care of that soldier. Military planners and strategists discovered that it is better to disable and wound an enemy soldier instead of instantly killing the soldier. A wounded soldier that is yelling and in agony has psychological effects on his fellow soldiers. They want to stop fighting and try to save or help him. They may leave secured positions of cover and move into the open to try to rescue him.
A great amount of resources, supplies and manpower must then be devoted to care for this wounded soldier, which can place great burdens on the enemy's capabilities to support war, such as manpower, medical resources, medics, transportation, hospital space, medicine and drugs, recovery or disability resources, etc. If military planners had their desire, they would rather have every enemy soldier become an invalid in bed that requires 24 hours per day care and resources. This burden can bankrupt and collapse an enemy's war fighting ability and defeat an enemy country in a shorter period of time.
An example of this military thinking can be seen by examining the lethal deadly stopping power of the 30-06 round used in World War II compared to the much lighter and smaller caliber bullet used in the Vietnam War, which was designed to wound and disable more of the enemy.